A
lot has been written about carbon offsetting over the last few years
(rather than rehash the arguments, a comprehensive critique can be
found here) needless to say any industry that was worth an estimated $576
Million in 2011 (1) will be attractive to the slickest of snake oil
salesmen.
To
many, offsets appear to be more a salve to our conscience than a
functioning response to the problem. As
Kevin Anderson, from the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research
put it;
“Offsetting
is a dangerous delaying technique because it helps us avoid tackling
the task [of dealing with climate change]… It helps us sleep well
at night when we shouldn’t sleep well at night” (2).
However
I do believe that a 'Transitiony' response to offsetting focused on
the individual and local environment, rather than some pay-to-forget
business, could go some way to negate the little unavoidable carbon
expenditures of everyday life.
Take
for example-
the
eminently recyclable aluminium cans discarded on the street, that the
council collect up with all the other rubbish to go to
landfill. Recycling these otherwise binned cans would then save 130g co2 per can by another not having to be produced
from virgin material. This doesn't sound like a lot but its enough for 0.6 miles in an average small car.
 |
| Want to fly to New York? That will be 9000 cans first. (picture wikipedia) |
- Smith, K (2007) 'The Carbon neutral myth – Offset indulgences for your climate sins' Carbon Trade Watch.
I've always thought that carbon offsetting is mere 'buck passing'- leaving the problem for someone else to sort out. Incidentally, anyone wanting to forage for cans (rather than cherries!) might do well to visit Acton Lane, where a treasure trove awaits them!
ReplyDelete